Published: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.

Last Modified: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.

What if convictions from the only trial to emerge from the biggest fraud in Southwest Florida history suddenly blew up?

A Tampa criminal defense attorney representing one of three defendants convicted at trial in the flipping fraud case is now pushing for a mistrial.

The lawyer is basing that on allegations that one juror read about the case on the Internet and that she was later pushed to convict by another panel member who threatened to expose her to the federal judge in the case.

Twenty-one people have been indicted in the flipping fraud case, with most pleading guilty in return for lighter sentences. Only three in the scheme outlined by the Herald-Tribune in a 2009 series chose to go to trial: George Cavallo, his wife, Paula Hornberger, and Joel Streinz.

In a March 2 motion in federal court, Cavallo's attorney asked U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich to hold an evidentiary hearing to discover whether the unnamed female juror used the Internet to research the case after swearing an oath not to.

The Herald-Tribune also has learned that the other juror — Patrick “PJ” George — threatened to turn in the first for violating court orders unless she changed her vote from “not guilty” to “guilty.”

Cavallo, Hornberger and Streinz were convicted of bank fraud in May after a three-month trial in which other co-conspirators, including the scheme's mastermind, former Sarasota Realtor Craig Adams, testified against them.

Cavallo was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Streinz got five years and Hornberger was sentenced to a year and a day.

Government prosecutors have not yet responded to the defense's motion for an evidentiary hearing, but said they will do so in the next several weeks. Retrying the highly complex case, which involved dozens of witnesses, would be a huge undertaking.

In the meantime, experts told the Herald-Tribune that if juror George's story proves true, Judge Kovachevich is likely to grant the defense's request.

“She's got to open up this can of worms and look inside,” said Frank Rubino, a Miami criminal defense attorney who represented former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in the 1980s.

If the judge later determines that the female juror violated her oath by investigating the case and that George blackmailed her into changing her verdict, Judge Kovachevich might have no choice but to declare a mistrial, Rubino said.

Others agreed.

“Based on the severity of these allegations, it would be proper to have an inquiry into what happened,” said Samuel Cooley, a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who has long studied cases of juror misconduct.

In the email and in a separate conversation with the Herald-Tribune, George said that 10 of the 12 jurors in the case wanted to convict Cavallo, Hornberger and Streinz on practically every count in the indictment.

Only George and the unnamed female juror wanted to acquit.

After seven days of deliberations, the jurors went to Judge Kovachevich to tell her that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge told them to negotiate.

At that point, George concluded that the best he could do for Cavallo and Hornberger was to convict them on one count of conspiring to make false statements to banks and one count of bank and wire fraud. But George said the unnamed juror would not change her mind.

“She believed that if she hung the jury, the government would not retry the case,” George said in his email. “I tried to convince her otherwise, but it took a few days to get her to see it my way.”

George said he met with the female juror outside the jury room and asked her why she would not change her verdict. She told George she knew things about the case that she could not discuss. That led George to conclude that the other juror “looked up things on the Internet even though we were told not to,” George said in his email.

Specifically, George said the unnamed juror learned that one of the co-defendants in the case — former Sarasota mortgage banker Craig Whitehead — had only been sentenced to three months of home confinement though he had been instrumental in the conspiracy.

George said that relatively light sentence further convinced the female juror that if she hung the jury, the defendants would not be retried.

“I told her that the government would not back down and if convicted at another trial, the defendants would receive harsher sentences,” George said in his email.

To force her to change her mind, George said he threatened to tell Judge Kovachevich about the juror's use of the Internet.

“I stated that someone else would be facing Judge K,” George said in his email. “I guess I convinced her I was serious. She then voted to convict along with the rest.”

Approaching juror George

Burns, Cavallo's attorney, said in his motion that George attempted to approach Cavallo's former attorney at Cavallo's sentencing on Oct. 26.

“Ms. Unger said hello to Juror George, but said and heard nothing further,” Burns wrote in his motion.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Tuite saw this exchange and complained to the court, Burns wrote. Judge Kovachevich then summoned George to the bench and told him not to speak to lawyers for the defense.

Four months later, Cavallo contacted George, and after that conversation, George sent his email to Unger.

Under Florida rules, attorneys are not permitted to interview a juror directly or indirectly after trial in any civil or criminal case.

But Burns argued in his motion that George's email does not constitute an indirect interview.

The court is permitted “to consider Juror George's email and any juror's future testimony about the objective facts regarding who performed legal research, when it was performed and when and how it was shared with the jury at large,” Burns wrote.

“The only thing that Juror George and other jurors may not testify about is how the legal research subjectively affected the jury's decision making.”

<p>What if convictions from the only trial to emerge from the biggest fraud in Southwest Florida history suddenly blew up?</p><p>A Tampa criminal defense attorney representing one of three defendants convicted at trial in the flipping fraud case is now pushing for a mistrial.</p><p>The lawyer is basing that on allegations that one juror read about the case on the Internet and that she was later pushed to convict by another panel member who threatened to expose her to the federal judge in the case.</p><p>Twenty-one people have been indicted in the flipping fraud case, with most pleading guilty in return for lighter sentences. Only three in the scheme outlined by the Herald-Tribune in a 2009 series chose to go to trial: George Cavallo, his wife, Paula Hornberger, and Joel Streinz.</p><p>In a March 2 motion in federal court, Cavallo's attorney asked U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich to hold an evidentiary hearing to discover whether the unnamed female juror used the Internet to research the case after swearing an oath not to.</p><p>The Herald-Tribune also has learned that the other juror — Patrick “PJ” George — threatened to turn in the first for violating court orders unless she changed her vote from “not guilty” to “guilty.”</p><p>Cavallo, Hornberger and Streinz were convicted of bank fraud in May after a three-month trial in which other co-conspirators, including the scheme's mastermind, former Sarasota Realtor Craig Adams, testified against them.</p><p>Cavallo was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Streinz got five years and Hornberger was sentenced to a year and a day.</p><p>Government prosecutors have not yet responded to the defense's motion for an evidentiary hearing, but said they will do so in the next several weeks. Retrying the highly complex case, which involved dozens of witnesses, would be a huge undertaking.</p><p>In the meantime, experts told the Herald-Tribune that if juror George's story proves true, Judge Kovachevich is likely to grant the defense's request.</p><p>“She's got to open up this can of worms and look inside,” said Frank Rubino, a Miami criminal defense attorney who represented former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in the 1980s.</p><p>If the judge later determines that the female juror violated her oath by investigating the case and that George blackmailed her into changing her verdict, Judge Kovachevich might have no choice but to declare a mistrial, Rubino said.</p><p>Others agreed.</p><p>“Based on the severity of these allegations, it would be proper to have an inquiry into what happened,” said Samuel Cooley, a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney who has long studied cases of juror misconduct.</p><p><b>Email from juror George</b></p><p>Cavallo's lawyer, Thomas Burns, filed his mistrial motion after Cavallo's former defense attorney, Karen Unger, received a Feb. 20 email from George. </p><p>In the email and in a separate conversation with the Herald-Tribune, George said that 10 of the 12 jurors in the case wanted to convict Cavallo, Hornberger and Streinz on practically every count in the indictment.</p><p>Only George and the unnamed female juror wanted to acquit.</p><p>After seven days of deliberations, the jurors went to Judge Kovachevich to tell her that they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge told them to negotiate.</p><p>At that point, George concluded that the best he could do for Cavallo and Hornberger was to convict them on one count of conspiring to make false statements to banks and one count of bank and wire fraud. But George said the unnamed juror would not change her mind.</p><p>“She believed that if she hung the jury, the government would not retry the case,” George said in his email. “I tried to convince her otherwise, but it took a few days to get her to see it my way.”</p><p>George said he met with the female juror outside the jury room and asked her why she would not change her verdict. She told George she knew things about the case that she could not discuss. That led George to conclude that the other juror “looked up things on the Internet even though we were told not to,” George said in his email.</p><p>Specifically, George said the unnamed juror learned that one of the co-defendants in the case — former Sarasota mortgage banker Craig Whitehead — had only been sentenced to three months of home confinement though he had been instrumental in the conspiracy.</p><p>George said that relatively light sentence further convinced the female juror that if she hung the jury, the defendants would not be retried.</p><p>“I told her that the government would not back down and if convicted at another trial, the defendants would receive harsher sentences,” George said in his email. </p><p>To force her to change her mind, George said he threatened to tell Judge Kovachevich about the juror's use of the Internet.</p><p>“I stated that someone else would be facing Judge K,” George said in his email. “I guess I convinced her I was serious. She then voted to convict along with the rest.”</p><p><b>Approaching juror George</b></p><p>Burns, Cavallo's attorney, said in his motion that George attempted to approach Cavallo's former attorney at Cavallo's sentencing on Oct. 26.</p><p>“Ms. Unger said hello to Juror George, but said and heard nothing further,” Burns wrote in his motion.</p><p>Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Tuite saw this exchange and complained to the court, Burns wrote. Judge Kovachevich then summoned George to the bench and told him not to speak to lawyers for the defense.</p><p>Four months later, Cavallo contacted George, and after that conversation, George sent his email to Unger.</p><p>Under Florida rules, attorneys are not permitted to interview a juror directly or indirectly after trial in any civil or criminal case.</p><p>But Burns argued in his motion that George's email does not constitute an indirect interview.</p><p>The court is permitted “to consider Juror George's email and any juror's future testimony about the objective facts regarding who performed legal research, when it was performed and when and how it was shared with the jury at large,” Burns wrote.</p><p>“The only thing that Juror George and other jurors may not testify about is how the legal research subjectively affected the jury's decision making.”</p>